Kolkata Court March 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Sikander, B.P. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)4CALLT379(HC)
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.2. Challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge on 13th June. 2005 and 20th June, 2005 in the writ petition, being W.P. No. 7744(W) of 2001, two appeals have been preferred by Eastern Coalfields Ltd. as appellant which have been registered as M.A.T. 611 of 2007 and F.M.A. 1905 of 2006 respectively. Both the appeals are taken up for analogous hearing.3. By the first order dated 13th June, 2005 the learned trial Judge though by setting aside the charge sheet and the order of dismissal, directed the authority to allow the writ petitioner's joining in the service who admittedly is a workman and also granted medical leave by considering the medical certificate as produced relating to the absence from duty for about eleven months, but kept the matter open for further hearing of respondents as they were absent on that date. Subsequently by the order dated 20th June, 2005 on hearing the learned...
Eic Holdings Limited Vs. Calcutta Dock Labour Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN311
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. In this application under Chapter XIII-A of the Rules on the Original Side of this Court, the plaintiff seeks a decree of eviction in respect of a portion of premises No. 20B, Abdul Hamid Street, Calcutta-700069.2. Under a registered deed of indenture of July 19, 1908 the plaintiff demised unto the defendant an area of 22785.14 sq.ft. on the first, second and fifth floors of the relevant building at the agreed monthly rent for a period of three years with an option to the defendant-tenant to renew the lease for a further year at the end of the third year and for a period of another year thereafter. The tenure under the lease began on June 1, 1967 and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 20,506.50 at the rate of 90 paise per square foot inclusive of the tenant's share of the municipal rates and taxes and a service charge of Rs. 7519.05 calculated at the rate of 33 paise per square foot for the amenities annexed to the tenancy. The deed obliged the tenant to observe th...
Mina Karmakar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN370
Aniruddha Bose, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer of kerosene oil under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. Though it is not pleaded so learned Counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that the license was granted in the year 1982. In this writ petition the petitioner challenge an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S) suspending her license temporarily. A copy of this order has been made Annexure P-10 to the writ petition.2. The petitioner had applied for inclusion of the names of her husband who appears to have retired from Government service and her eldest son as dealers and the application was made on 19lh January, 2007. Prior to that, some complaints had been made about reduction of number of ration cards tagged to her business but for the purpose of adjudication of the present writ petition, these facts are not of much relevance.3. After such representation was made the petitioner on some occasions had been directed to produce various registers fo...
Krishna Adhikary Alias Barman Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2659
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 28th February, 2000, passed by Sri K. Chakraborty, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipurduar, in Session Case No. 41 of 1997 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge sentenced the accused to suffer life imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months.2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 18th May, 1992, the accused, Krishna Adhikary alias Barman assaulted his elder brother, Khiten Barman, with a dagger. The wife of Khiten Barman intervened. She was dealt a blow on her hand which resulted in a bleeding injury. Khiten took to his heels. Krishna chased him. In order to save his life, Khiten entered into the bed room of Sudhir Babu. Krishna entered into the bedroom of Sudhir Babu and m...
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Eveready Industries (India) L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN970,(2009)IILLJ678Cal
Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jalpaiguri challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 28th January, 2003 whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned order with a direction to the authorities to reconsider the issue within a period of three months from the date in the light of the judgment and order passed by the Court. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion the learned Single Judge relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Darjeeling Dooars Plantation Ltd. and Anr. v. Regional P.F. Commissioner, W.B. and Ors. reported in 1995(1) LLJ 1999, wherein it has been held that there is a distinction in between Section 14B and Section 17B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment came up for consideration before a Special Bench of this Court in the case of Dalgaon Agro Industries Ltd. (now known as Tasati Tea L...
Haradhan Dutta Vs. Babul Chandra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN778
Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and this is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kandi, District-Mursidabad in Civil Revision Case No. 46 of 97 whereby he has confirmed the order No. 65 dated 02.07.1997 passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Kandi, District-Mursidabad in O.S. Case No. 65 of 1987 rejecting thereby an application dated 17.05.1997 for marking a document as an exhibit on behalf of the plaintiff.2. The fact of the case in short is that the plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit bearing O.S. No. 65 of 1987 for specific performance of a contract. The opposite parties were contesting that suit and they contended that there was no such agreement for specific performance of a contract. The suit was at the stage of recording evidence when the plaintiff/petitioner filed one damaged and torn paper purported to be the agroement for specific performanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›